Talk:CharOp:ToDoList
By the way... Ya'll are awesome. Just letting you know. -- Ekko talk '' 22:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC) :Agreed. Thanks to everybody involved here! Doctor Hook 06:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC) Primary and Secondary Builds Okay, just so we're clear, can someone post an official definition of "primary build" and "secondary build"? I've been assuming that "primary build" meant the "builds" that the rulebooks refer to (Guardian Fighter or Trickster Rogue or Scourge Warlock, for example), while "secondary build" refers to the specific, laid-out plans of feats and powers that make up the bread-&-butter "builds" of the CharOp boards. If this isn't correct, lemme know ASAP please. Thanks, team. Doctor Hook 22:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC) :When I talked about Primary and Secondary, a {class} primary build is a build that starts out as a {class}. So, a Hexhammer is a primary warlock build. A secondary build is a build that multiclasses into the secondary build. Hexhammers are warlock primary and fighter secondary. That way, it's easy to navigate builds based on base class and secondary class. -- 'Ekko' ''talk '' 00:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC) ::Okay then. I can't honestly say that I totally understand what you mean, but I think I get the gist of it. More importantly though, I need to know if there's any terminology for the builds presented in the books. Clearly, what WotC calls a "build" in the Player's Handbook, for example, is not quite the same thing as the "builds" that ChOppers are usually referring to; ChOppers use the word "build" to refer to a specific "plan" for a character based upon the available options, while the rulebooks use "build" to refer to both a ''suggested plan (similar to the above definition) as well as to a sort of "sub-class" within each class, into which class-powers and feats can be roughly divided. Some of these subclasses are quite similar, like in the case of a Rogue or Wizard, while others differ significantly, even down to the primary ability scores used by each subclass, as is the case with Clerics or Rangers. ::Anyway, since the books officially call these subclasses "builds", I think whatever terminology we use should be as similar to that as possible, without being confused with the specific character-building plans that ChOppers are usually referring to. The main reason I'm wondering about all this is that it will directly effect the terminology I have and will use in the Book: articles. ::Thanks again, Ekko! --'Doctor Hook' '' '' 03:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC) :::Perhaps we refer to the "builds" in the books as "suggested builds," and just use "build" as CharOppers (read: the group we're catering to) use it - as a path or plan that statistically defines a character. :::On a related note, it might be worth hosting full 30-level extensions of the "suggested builds" in the books, to help our novices out. Something like the "Statting the Obvious" thread on the forums. -- Ekko talk '' 23:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC) ::::"Suggested Builds"; I can get behind that. It's accurate, if nothing else. ::::As far as full extensions of the suggested builds, I'm not the best guy to create those, but I definitely agree that such info belongs here. (It's the kind of thing that could appear in a future PH, too.) It might be wise to include a "Player's Handbook-only" version of those builds too, especially if those builds are aimed at beginners. Finally, I'm definitely a big fan of the "Statting the Obvious" thread, and I'd really like to see a feature section here closely based on that thread. Plus, Nifft is a great ChOpper.--'Doctor Hook''' '' '' 05:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)